Trujillo TEH, Hurtado VG

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 130-135
PDF size: 294.85 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Aim:To give a new option with a simple methodology and readily available materials that it allows to evaluate and to compare the effects of the instrumentation techniques on root canal geometry of extracted teeth before and after treatment.
Hypothesis: This procedure allows reassembling the root fragments exactly without loss of dental structure facilitating root canal instrumentation. With the transparent acrylic it is possible to section roots and maintain their original wall thickness.
Equipment: Isothermic autocured acrylic resin (Polymer), metyl metacrilate monomer , insaturade polyester type cristal resin (MC40) , polyvinyl alcohol, methyl-ethyl-cetone peroxide (MEC), pressurized silicon (poliorgan silicate, ethyl silicate, dibutilin dilaurate, etanol).
Methodology: The surface of the samples was covered with transparent auto cured acrylic and then the acrylic surfaces were painted with a film of polyvinyl alcohol as a separator. Crystal resin with 1-2% methyl-ethyl-cetone peroxide as a catalyst was mixed and poured into a cubic mold. The samples were placed inside the resin, and they were removed after . Horizontal grooves were made around the acrylic with a diamond disk at low speed. The type of a small screwdriver was inserted into each groove and with a slight blow; a section of the root at each level was created.
Results: It allows measures of every wall and every third of the root.
Conclusion: A simple device using readily available materials, that permits geometric and conformational analysis of root canals after instrumentation, comparing its original form and with the advantages of not losing dental structures.

REFERENCES

1. Gutiérrez JH, García J. Microscopic and macroscopic investigation of results of mechanical preparation of root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1968; 25: 108-116.

2. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparation in straight and curved root canal. Oral Surg O Med Oral Path 1971; 32: 271-275.

3. Klayman SM, Brilliant JD. Comparison of the efficacy of serial preparation versus giromatic preparation. J Endodon 1975; 1: 334-337

4. Coffae KP, Brilliant JD. The effect of serial preparation versus nonserial preparation in tissue removal in the root canals of extracted mandibular human molars. J Endodon 1975; 1: 211-214.

5. Walton RE. Histologic evaluation of different methods of enlarging the pulp canal space. J Endodon 1976; 2: 304-311.

6. Vessey RA. The effect of filling versus reaming on the shape of the prepared root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1969; 27: 543-547.

7. Blitzkow SG, Batista A, Loureiro de Melo L. The radiographic platform: a new method to evaluate root canal preparation in vitro. J Endodon 1991; 17: 570-572.

8. Harty FJ, Stock CJR. The gyromatic system compared with hand instrumentation in endodontics. Brit Dent J 1974; 137: 239-244.

9. Esposito PT, Cuningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endodon 1995; 21: 173-176.

10. Chenail BL, Teplitsky PE. Endosonics in curved root canals. J Endodon 1985; 11: 369-374.

11. Jardine SJ, Gulabivala K. An in vitro comparison of canal preparation using two automated rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 381-391.

12. Mizrahi SJ, Tuker JW, Seltzer S. A scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various endodontic instruments. J Endodon 1975; 1: 324-333.

13. Moodnik RM, Dorn SO, Feldman MJ, Levey M, Borden BG. Efficacy of biomechanical instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endodon 1976; 2: 261-267.

14. Bolaños OR, Jensen JR. Scanning electron microscope comparisons of efficacy of various methods of root canal preparation. J Endodon 1980; 6: 815-822.

15. Rubin LM, Skoge Z, Krakow AA, Grow P. The effect of instrumentation and flushing of freshly extracted teeth in endodontic therapy: a scanning electron microscope study. J Endodon 1979; 5: 328-335.

16. Davis SR, Brayton SM, Goldman M. The morphology of the prepared root canal: a study utilizing an injectable silicone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1972; 34: 642-8.

17. Abou RM, Jastrab RJ. The use of rotary instruments as auxiliary aids to root canal preparation of molars. J Endodon 1982; 8: 78-82.

18. Da Fonseca-Paulo MP. Estudo do remanescennte dentiário após a instrumentacao endodontica na raiz mesial dos molares inferiores. Doctoral thesis Fac Med Dent da Universidade do Potro (Portugal) 1994.

19. Peters OA, Schönenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 221-230.

20. Mayo CM, Montgomery S, Del Río C. A computerized method for evaluation root canal morphology. J Endodon 1986; 12: 2-7.

21. Blaskovic-Subat V, Smojver I, Maricic B, Sutalo J. A computerized method for evaluation of root canal morphology. J Endodon 1995; 28: 290-296.

22. Campos HF, Rodríguez-Vallejo J. Digitization, analysis and processing of dental images during root canal preparation with quantec series 2000 instruments. I Endod J 2001; 34: 29-39.

23. Blum JY, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Location of contact areas on rotary profile instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preparation on extracted teeth. I Endod J 1999; 32: 108-114.

24. Bryant ST, Dummer PMH, Pitoni C, Bourba M, Moghal S. Shaping ability of .04 and .06 taper profile rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. I Endod J 1999; 32: 155-164.

25. Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endodon 1987; 13: 243-245.

26. Zaia AA, Randi Ferraz CC, Yoshinari GH, De Souza FF. A simple method for the analyses of root canal preparation. J Endodon 2000; 3: 172-174.

27. Trujillo EH, Vingardi G. Comparación del grosor de la pared radicular pre y posinstrumentación con Profile y Greater Taper. Tesis Especialidad. CUEPI, UMSNH. 2002: 1-52.